12:25:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poe
12:25:11 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/05-poe-irc
12:25:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:25:13 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poe
12:25:15 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
12:25:15 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
12:25:16 <trackbot> Meeting: Permissions and Obligations Expression Working Group Teleconference
12:25:16 <trackbot> Date: 05 June 2017
12:25:21 <renato> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:25:36 <renato> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170605
12:25:51 <renato> present+
12:28:17 <renato> Is all of Europe on holidays?
12:29:07 <ivan> well, most of it
12:29:18 <ivan> but... the meeting is marked to be cancelled?
12:30:32 <renato> I am ok to cancel it
12:30:33 <victor> victor has joined #poe
12:30:58 <victor> hi
12:32:31 <ivan> present+
12:32:36 <victor> present+
12:33:11 <phila> present+
12:34:52 <phila> s/hi//
12:34:53 <ivan> cd
12:35:19 <ivan> s/cd//
12:36:04 <CarolineB> CarolineB has joined #poe
12:36:39 <phila> [General discussion about whether there are sufficient people for a meaningful meeting]
12:37:01 <phila> benws11111: Not enough people IMO
12:37:16 <phila> ... Can we clarify some dates - when are we next looking to publish
12:37:22 <phila> renato: The next milestone is to go to CR
12:37:26 <phila> scribeNick: phila
12:37:29 <phila> scribe: phila
12:37:40 <phila> renato: Got to get things lined up for that
12:38:00 <phila> renato: In theory, it was going to be at the F2F but we weren't close to resolving the outstanding issues.
12:38:05 <phila> ... No new target set as yet
12:38:31 <phila> ... My my POV, I can see maybe another couple of weeks for the 2 deliverables, then the test cases
12:38:42 <phila> ivan: We have a plan for how to do the test cases?
12:38:56 <phila> ... If we have a plan and say they'll be complete shortly.
12:39:06 <phila> ... Going to CR doesn't need all the test cases to be in place
12:39:20 <CarolineB> present+ CarolineB
12:39:26 <CarolineB> *me sorry to be late
12:39:54 <phila> benws11111: When we go to Rec, we're going with 2 documents?
12:39:56 <phila> [Yes]
12:40:21 <phila> benws11111: benws11111 What will be the status of the Vocab?
12:40:28 <phila> ivan: Recommendation
12:40:36 <phila> benws11111: It's going to be quite small though isn't it?
12:40:41 <phila> renato: Not too small.
12:41:01 <phila> benws11111: So if they go into the Rec process, does that mean the UCR needs to be in its final form
12:41:22 <phila> ivan: There's no process requirement on the UCR
12:41:53 <phila> ivan: It's usually closed at the end of the process. Might want to make some final bits to the UCR to point to where Recs are met
12:44:53 <phila> phila: Outlines different assumptions about what an ODRL Evaluator returns and therefore what inputs it needs
12:45:32 <phila> benws11111: It makes sense that an agreement or offer is in effect, not sure what a Set being in effect means
12:48:05 <victor> different blackboxes will need different inputs/outputs.
12:48:08 <victor> q+
12:48:55 <victor> q-
12:49:05 <phila> Yes, I am defining an API, ia
12:49:11 <phila> s/ia/ivan/
12:51:04 <renato> http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#constraint-party
12:53:36 <phila> [Discussion about what a black box and an evaluator needs to know]
12:53:55 <benws11111> +1
12:53:55 <phila> ivan: We don't need to standardise the behaviour of the black boxes
12:54:18 <phila> ... Each implementation has to answer the questions Phil is asking, but they can do it as they wish
12:55:01 <phila> benws11111: The policy evaluator is, given these inputs from the black boxes, is this policy in play or not
12:55:09 <phila> renato: Do you mean policy or Rule
12:55:11 <phila> benws11111: Rule
12:55:42 <phila> renato: If there were a Rule with 6 constraints, do we say give me a true or false for all of them?
12:57:14 <phila> benws11111: Describes a black box per constraint. Get back all the answwers
12:57:30 <victor> You can play this on Tuesday. BLACKBOX1: "I need the current time". BLACKBOX2: "I need the current time and the party's location, to determine whether in his/her location we are already on Tuesday". Specific implementations need different params, but cannot standardize that --> black boxes should be very black
12:57:37 <phila> renato: All need to know that all constraints are satisfied for the Rule to be in force
12:59:08 <phila> benws11111: We'd need a different charter to handle the kind of processing Phil's talking about
12:59:28 <phila> ivan: We're defining a vocabulary, no more
12:59:41 <phila> ivan: We'd need a market for black boxes.
13:00:20 <phila> [AOB]
13:00:40 <phila> benws11111: Not asking for accepting minutes etc. as not quorate this week. Will pick up next week.
13:00:55 <phila> ivan: How close are really to a CR?
13:01:17 <phila> ivan: I'm a little worried that the F2F had to discuss pretty heavy technical issues that are still not closed.
13:01:29 <phila> ... I saw the Renato/Michael discussion this morning
13:01:45 <phila> benws11111: We did make those tech decisions, I think.
13:02:21 <phila> ivan: The SKOS/Not SKOS discussion is about whether we have additional semantics on those terms.
13:02:38 <phila> ... If so, then those semantics need to be properly defined and put in the doc.
13:02:57 <phila> benws11111: I would say the semantics are up to the formal semantics editors
13:03:13 <phila> ivan: But the semantics have to be reflected in the Rec Track doc. The Semantics doc isn't Rec Track.
13:03:23 <phila> ... Something has to go into the model and vocab that is binding.
13:04:09 <phila> renato: The 1st attempt to define narrowerThan and implies didn't work but that's always the way. We need to clarify that these are not SKOS-like
13:04:20 <phila> ... Then in for FS doc, we provide the maths
13:05:02 <phila> renato: I think we just go through the usual collaborative process. Say that we're not going to use SKOS for those. We can still use it for concepts
13:05:26 <phila> ivan: But what does it bring that SKOS doesn't have?
13:05:36 <phila> ... Not sure what it brings to have it.
13:06:00 <phila> ivan: If people are happy, I'll be quiet.
13:06:08 <phila> renato: Did the Annotations WG use SKOS?
13:06:11 <phila> ivan: No.
13:06:54 <phila> ... I think we had a brief discussion, but when SKOS came around, this kind of confusion about the role of SKOS came up.
13:07:17 <phila> benws11111: I can fall into that confusion easily.
13:07:29 <phila> ... It loses relevance as you move on to ontologies
13:07:53 <phila> ... There's value where you want a term to come from a controlled vocab but that's not what we're doing with these 2 new properties.
13:08:21 <phila> ivan: I wonder whether, every appearance of SKOS, in the current version, is right.
13:08:37 <phila> benws11111: Not to control hierarchy, but for a taxonomy.
13:08:59 <phila> ivan: I hope I'm right that the use of SKOS isn't part of the model or vocab?
13:09:09 <phila> renato: Intentionally there for a reason?
13:09:20 <phila> ivan: Is it part of the spec or is it only in the ontology?
13:09:54 <phila> renato: It doesn't appear in the human-readable doc
13:10:20 <phila> ivan: I'm guessing that the use of SKOS is not part of the normative part of our Rec Track docs
13:10:24 <phila> renato: True
13:10:46 <phila> ivan: So if in CR, someone take the time to look at and clean up the ontology, then it can be done without breaking CR.
13:10:51 <victor> can that be rephrased again?
13:10:57 <phila> ... Whether we have the time and will is another matter.
13:11:53 <phila> ivan: I could say that the ontology for the normative vocab, should not contain any term which is not specified by the standard.
13:12:18 <phila> ivan: We have an ontology. That's not the Rec.
13:12:41 <phila> ... Any RDF statement in that ontology that is extra, it's an extra that no one in the WG voted on
13:12:45 <phila> q+ to talk about DCAT
13:13:06 <phila> renato: we can put SKOS axioms in the ontology, but they don't really change things
13:13:20 <phila> benws11111: we should reflect the Rec in the ontology
13:13:23 <phila> ivan: Yes.
13:14:12 <phila> victor: We have info in the ontology that isn't in the Rec
13:14:23 <phila> ivan: The ontology is clearly specified...
13:14:53 <phila> [Victor shows diagram with Venn diagram of English language Spec and OWL file]
13:15:03 <phila> victor: I wonder whether other ontologies have been specified like this
13:15:12 <phila> q-
13:16:14 <phila> phila: Talks about DCAT. The Rec mandates the use of DC Terms in various places, the namespace file doesn't mention any term other than dcat: terms
13:16:42 <phila> benws11111: we'll have to discuss it in ore detail when we're quorate.
13:17:33 <phila> [Informal resolution]
13:17:53 <phila> The ontology (namespace file) should only include terms defined in the Rec Track document
13:18:00 <phila> RRSAgent, pointer
13:18:00 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2017/06/05-poe-irc#T13-18-00
13:18:19 <phila> ivan: We talked about the core/common vocab.
13:18:55 <phila> ... New terms may be in non-normative parts of the Rec Track doc, they can be included. But there shouldn't be terms that are not mentioned anywhere in the Rec
13:19:07 <phila> renato: We've already removed the SKOS terms
13:19:27 <phila> ... We used to use things like skos:definition, skos:scopeNote etc.
13:19:52 <phila> ivan: RDF has label and comment
13:20:14 <phila> phila: I would use dcterms:description if rdfs:comment is insufficient
13:20:37 <phila> renato: We took out all the skos:broaderTerm stuff
13:20:43 <phila> ivan: But Michael isn't happy?
13:20:53 <phila> renato: He wants to use SKOS for broader/narrower
13:21:05 <phila> ... We need to articulate the difference
13:21:26 <phila> ... I think we should change the name from narrowerThan to ??
13:21:42 <phila> phila: ?? suggests 'refines/refinementOf'
13:21:56 <phila> benws11111: How about 'assumes'
13:22:03 <phila> ivan: Let's wait fort Simon
13:22:26 <phila> renato: That would explain why we have our own terms
13:22:38 <phila> s/explain/help to explain/
13:22:48 <phila> ivan: So we used our time wisely after all?
13:22:58 <phila> benws11111: Not bad for an informal chat.
13:23:07 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
13:23:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/05-poe-minutes.html phila
13:24:59 <phila> regrets+ Serena, Sabrina, Michael, Much_of_Europe
13:25:07 <phila> chair: Ben
13:25:10 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
13:25:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/05-poe-minutes.html phila
13:31:12 <phila> zakim, bye
13:31:12 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been renato, ivan, victor, phila, CarolineB
13:31:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #poe
13:31:18 <phila> RRSAgent, bye
13:31:18 <RRSAgent> I see no action items